3 ms·
There are better resources than GGS, actual historians and anthropologists are quite critical of it. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pmu2ft/rec
by HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
There are better resources than GGS, actual historians and anthropologists are quite critical of it.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pmu2ft/recommendation_whats_the_contemporary_equivalent/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pmu2ft/recom...
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22 https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...
- Symmetry 3y agoThat's what you get when you have a scientist try writing a book that's simultaneously popular science and popular history. And judged as a popular history GGS does get a lot of things wrong and isn't up to the standards historians work to hold up. But on more scientific questions like "why there weren't diseases endemic to the new world that would affect Europeans in the same way that smallpox did to the indigenous populations" it does a good job. EDIT: Really, the reception to GGS is probably one of the best illustrations of what Thomas Kuhn was talking about in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions about different paradigms having different rules that I can recall seeing in my lifetime.
- sgift 3y agoMainly "actual historians and anthropologists" on reddit and in related circles. GGS is far less controversial outside these circles and often lauded - also by "actual historians and anthropologists".
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoI have significant doubts about that.